— the wearer of the tattoo had served time in a correctional
facility, usually ten years or more; or
— the wearer of the tattoo had murdered a rival gang member.
Totten also said if this was the reason for the tattoo, typically
the wearer would obtain it within six months of the homicide.
[ 66] Second, the quantitative branch of Totten’s opinion. Totten’s evidence was that between 1995 and 2005, he conducted
six studies on young gang members. The six studies yielded the
following dramatic statistics:
— Totten studied a total of 290 young gang members;
— of the 290, 97 gang members had been convicted of a homicide, either murder or manslaughter;
— of the 97, 71 male gang members had teardrop tattoos; and
— each of the 71 told Totten he had obtained a teardrop tattoo
to signify he had killed a rival gang member.
In his evidence at trial, Totten gave no breakdown of the number
of homicides or teardrop tattoos attributable to each study.
[ 67] That Totten’s statistics are based on his six studies is crit-
ical to my assessment of the cogency of the fresh evidence. The
six studies in chronological order are the following:
— Youth Services Bureau (“YSB”) Survey (May 1999): a one-
month study to get a snapshot of the youth who were living
on the street in Ottawa;
— Guys, Gangs and Girlfriend Abuse (2000): an 18-month
study of various forms of physical and sexual violence
— Understanding Serious Youth Violence (2001): a three-month
study to investigate various forms of extreme violence;
— When Children Kill (2002): a study into the lives of 19
young persons convicted of murder or manslaughter;
— Youth Literacy and Violence Prevention Research Project
(2003): a study of the literacy level of young people engaging
in violence; and
— The Gays in the Gang (2005): a report on the experiences of
young gay, bisexual and transgender gang members who
engaged in serious street violence.